Printable View
depending on what capacity they're used in (i know you said a night club flyer) but i just do not like any of the color ones. the 4th is blurry around her head and the last with just the spotlight offers nothing towards promoting a night club since all you can really see is her face. if you could bring out a little more detail in the b&w's background so she doesn't just look like she's floating with undescernable items behind her it might work.
the flyer is for HER birthday, not so much its to promote the club, i wanted her to stand out over everything else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dyne
see, these little details help :P
so now with that little bit of information? Id imagine the B&W one or the scary face one would be used, thena big logo for the night on the left side, flip it around all the night club info with the 4th one of her face in a box with a caption saying its her 21st birthday celebration night.
Quote:
Originally Posted by B-Ri
B&W all the way. The lighting on the others looks too cheesy.
everyone seems to like the colored version of the B&W much more.
Click for full size
don't you value OUR opinion much more than "everyone" anyway?
Black and white. Get all that shit out of the background too.
B-Ri, don't get mad when I say this please. You have a bad eye for this stuff. The shot angles, the lighting, the position of the subject. What the hell were you thinking having all that b.s. in the background? Weird cones? My favorite is that one of her on the bar with her knees together, but that's because I have an affinity for cute young chicks peeing. Look at the lighting on her face! It's ghastly! Sorry. It just doesn't seem like you're really interested in being better. Especially when you ask for tnl's opinions and abruptly shoot them down.
i hadnt shown TNL the colored version of it, and i had just posted it to see if TNL thought so as well since they thought the B&W version was the best.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dyne
see above, i do like the b&w better myself cause it did basically remove the entire background.Quote:
B-Ri, don't get mad when I say this please. You have a bad eye for this stuff. The shot angles, the lighting, the position of the subject. What the hell were you thinking having all that b.s. in the background? Weird cones? My favorite is that one of her on the bar with her knees together, but that's because I have an affinity for cute young chicks peeing. Look at the lighting on her face! It's ghastly! Sorry. It just doesn't seem like you're really interested in being better. Especially when you ask for tnl's opinions and abruptly shoot them down.
I had 1 hour to do this shoot because the girl asked me completely last minute. This also wasnt my location, and i couldnt do much to the place other then turn off the lights, this was her workplace, her boss kept coming in, and i had somewhere to be after.
THose are all basically right out of camera, photoshopping them wasnt my job, although i know i could have done better in camera as it was.
I'm also trying to improve my photography skills. Bear with me, I only had the camera for 3 weeks.
Click for full size
Click for full size
Click for full size
Click for full size
That one from the park is way too cluttered, I have no idea what the subject of the photo is. You seem to have the rule of Thirds down, which is a start, but you need to start framing pictures with something in mind. The one with the street light is the best, it's got good framing and the leading lines of the awning draw your eye right to the light. The only problem, is that it's a picture of a street light.
Love the third one.
The others, im not sure where you were going with it, I wish the sub took more of the frame, and that you took a low angle shot of it to really give us an idea of how large it is.
Mess with your aperture and focus, the third one looks like its dying for some depth of field. Experiment with your lens and its aperture, the more you stop up (going from lets say f2 to f1.4) the more narrow your depth of field gets.
Thanks for the feedback. You are correct, I need to start thinking about what I want to convey to the viewer, before I snap the picture. I hardly ever think before I shoot. In the park picture, I tried to combine several elements from the past. A runestone, a mill-wheel and a several 100 year old tree. Much like in the tradition of national-romanticism. Perhaps I should got back to the scene, and rethink the composition.Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
The light is just a light. It was interesting because it cast a shadow, while being lit itself.
What is the rule of the Thirds?
Thanks. (you refer to the parachutist, right?) I find the third one a bit kitsch and mainstream. I took 50 shots of paragliders and chose the best one.Quote:
Originally Posted by B-Ri
The sub is quite small actually. Making it seem larger wasn't my thought. (It's a hobby sub and I sometimes talk to the loonie that built it.) The idea was to portray the sub in it's natural 'abandoned shipyard' environment.
I'm so much a newbie, that I don't even know what aperture is... Everything is still on auto. That last bit about "depth of field" made no sense to me. Did you mean, focus on the background? Or make the background fill more of the image?
Depth of field = the range distances from the film plane that subjects are in focus. What i was saying is it was giving me a vibe like you were trying to get the foreground stone the only thing in focus. EXAMPLE: With f1.4, with a 25mm lens, with your subject in focus being 5 feet away, only things between 4 feet 7 inches to 5 feet, 6 inches will be in focus, Anything before, or after will be out of focus. Only 11 inches is in focus.Quote:
Originally Posted by dakidski
Aperture is a set of constants, where the next in the order will deliver half the light of its previous one.
1, 1.4, 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22 ect. (Basically keep doubling in the same pattern)
f1 the aperture is WIDE open, letting in vast amounts of light. When youre outside in pure daylight, everything is going to be dramatically overexposed with this aperture. Daylight i usually find a good niche around f8 and 11.
Aperture can cause the BIGGEST changes in depth of field. I carry calculated charts around with me for my own shoots. For you experiment with your camera and just get a good feel for it. Since youre also on digital, take 2 and 3 is easy to do.
Compare the example above to the example here. A subject still at 5 feet, with an aperture setting of f8, the depth of field is now 3 feet 4 inches, to 9 feet 9 inches. BIG set up from f2s 11 inches in focus. Experiment, and you should begin to understand what im saying.
Next, look into your camera viewfinder, you should find a meter in there that looks like (or at least how my nikon has):
+ ------|------ -
getting the meter perfectly to the center will give you whats considered a perfect exposure. Its effected by how much or how little light you put on the subject, the aperture, its ISO speed (how sensitive the film/image sensor is to light, the higher the number the more grain will appear) and its shutter speed (how long you let the light into your film/image sensor).
Remember, perfect exposure isnt something you NEED to shoot for ALWAYS. Experiment. Youre running digital, read up a bit on what ive been speaking of, and just go nuts, youll start picking it up.
Ive needed to learn a lot of these things like the back of my hand with my current film class, and its to much more detail.
If you have any questions or anything just hit me up, youd be helping me study in a sort of way haha.
Here are some basic photography tips.Quote:
Originally Posted by dakidski
thanks alot guys. Be back soon, after I implement your tips n' tricks.
hurry, i love seeing progress :xQuote:
Originally Posted by dakidski
I re-read your note. I think I understand 'depth of field' now. I also mostly understood your aperture explanation, although I'm a bit uneasy going away from auto-settings, just yet. This also means, I don't get to see the meters. I'll set out, by improving the content of the images; What is to be in the image, where and why.
Just for the record, I own the Nikon D40 with an 18-55 mm lens.
Btw. can anyone recommend a cheap padded camerabag, with room for a charger + 1 extra lens? I'm not paying 150$ for the official Nikon d40 bag. (European price)
Has anyone else done this? Picasa and other services allow you to locate where you took for photo and mark it, remembering exactly where i took them was nostalgic
http://picasaweb.google.com/briangmo...olio/photo#map
One of my favorite pictures from the event i covered last night.
Click for full size
Very nice. Do you process the picture properties in RAW, before you publish them online? PS. I love your ferriswheel pic.
Yeah i go raw, aperture loves raw and it gives me so much more freedom to manipulate it.
The pic above had very little manipulation, i brought the exposure up a tad and saturated it a bit.
That last pic totally makes me think of Angel from KoF.
Just wanted to recommend the Photomatix Pro for processing Raw images. If your camera is supported by Photoshop Raw, then you probably don't need this app.
im using aperture 1.5, trying to find a way to get me aperture 2 :oQuote:
Originally Posted by dakidski
One of my favorites from the Santa Barbara trip.
Click for full size
took a trip down to the dock today. took over 65 pics. going through them now.
Click for full size
Click for full size
Click for full size
Click for full size
Love it.
I wish that speed limit sign wasnt DIRECTLY under the sign above it :x
yeah. i looked all over for another sign but that was the only one they had.
i think pic three needs some cropping.
Click for full size
Click for full size
Click for full size
Click for full size
Pooping dog FTW.
cloudy is always ideal, you dont get the harsh hard light of direct sunlight those days.
Click for full size
Click for full size
Click for full size
Click for full size
Click for full size
Click for full size
i like #5. What camera are you using?
Canon S3 IS
ElCapitan: wow nice!
wtf did you do to that lion's face to make a halo around it?
this is just me, but i REALLY don't like what that action is supposed to be doing. it looks like a half assed smudge/dodge combo in the first one and really fucked up the edges in the last one.
i think the pictures would have been better without it though.
Elcap: No, I wasn't joking. I really like your pictures, they show great skill. I biased towards pictures of nature and memorials. There is an amazing difference between your original pictures and the processed end result. I prefer the first bunny, because the bronze colors show.
i havent been able to do any photography for fun lately, its mostly been all work work work work work! This summer should change things.
Maybe ill have some production stills and set location pics in the next few days.
it's been the opposite for me. going out today for some more random shots.Quote:
Originally Posted by B-Ri
film and ADR work hold me back.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dyne
I may have to miss TNL san diego :/
I took some pictures today. Nothing really special, but I loved the sleaziness of Scientology. Their machine revealed that this poor woman needed a dose of L-Ron.
Click for full size
Click for full size
Click for full size
dakidski, cut out the dark columns on the sides, and just have a portrait of her and those beige columns, and i personally will declare it a masterpiece. I love it.
I think you should keep the dark one on the left and just get rid of the signs on it. Try it.
I would, but I'm not going to.
yeah i think they work well as a natural frame.
learn to fucking ATTACH. :tu:Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitan
Those are some fucking great looking flowers. I've thought about taking photos of flowers but never found any perfect ones like those.
I posted some of these photos in the Post Your Pics thread, but here are some of my favorites. From this past Sunday's Bay to Breakers even in San Francisco. More here.
Click for full size
Click for full size
Click for full size
love it
Nice pics Cap. Netwurked wanted me to ask you when are you going to post the pics from the Japanese bath houses in S&B.
gimme more compositions besides side heavy and depth of fields. They are pretty, every once in a while, but all the time it gets boring. Ex, the 3rd one is a great composition.
you dont like the 3rd composition?
i havent posted much, as its mostly work pictures then show pictures, but here are some.
Also i freaking hate aperture 2 right now, there seems to be a MAJOR bug where all at once it seems to think my pictures are located on a COMPLETELY different drive.
so what's the percentage of photos that you pass through Photoshop?
im in one of them :p
I've been editing a lot of my shots of Chicago that were taken over Christmas. Here are some shots of the stairwell at the Chicago Museum of Contemporary Art. Check my flickr for some info about the building.
Very nice. My favorite is the middle one (looking down the stairs).Quote:
Originally Posted by Lobo
yay for lines...
also turtles
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkRyan
Thanks guys. I agree, the shot looking down is probably my favorite out of the bunch as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitan
I actually like the first one best. The positive/negative space is just confusing enough to make it more abstract than the second. Plus some of the contrast is lost in the one looking down because the rail supports aren't seen as much. So there's more dimensionality in the first and it's not as standard an angle for a staircase photo as from above. What makes the first better than the third is orientation markers (the person) so you can figure out what you're looking at.
the shoot i did today for the youth center
that chick on the left needs my penis to be inserted into her.
Just a quick shot with my point and shoot, but I love it. We have an awesome storm outside right now.
That's dope.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomi
Thanks. It was also raining, so I just stuck myself out the door frame and snapped a picture as quickly as I could. I'm really surprised that it turned out well. My camera isn't fantastic, but for a point and shoot, it takes decent pictures. The lack of options (there are NO mode settings, at all) can ruin things sometimes but it did very well in this case.
i just want you to be able to take pictures without having to Photoshop them.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitan
i would just like to see more of what you can do with just the camera. right now it seems like you're just correcting for things that should have been right anyway, instead of what you say you're doing.
regardless, you're keeping this thread alive and i can appreciate that. i'm not trying to be a cock, just my own opinion.
http://www.the-nextlevel.com/board/a...1&d=1213922482
i like the darkness
That guy's a little white to pull off a nickname like "the darkness."Quote:
Originally Posted by B-Ri
Dyne is right. No, being out "in the field" or whatever the fuck doesn't allow you unlimited retries but you shouldn't need them. Work more on doing things with your camera and less tweaking settings in Photoshop. All of your pictures look fake, and because of that they look lame.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitan
I hate to pull the "in my day" card, but we used to take pictures on FILM. Film cost money and because of this you would work a lot harder for your shot, not take a billion shitty snapshots of something and shop it up later.
Photoshop has its place, but right now I feel like your stuff is one step away from running through the filter presets and going "oh shit, plastic wrap! this looks awesome!"
The thing is you have some good compositions, and a few really good compositions... but then you shit all over them with silly effects and jacked up colours. Cut it out. Show some restraint.
hahahaha, brien is VERY white.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkRyan
What i like is how super bright the light was above him, behind him was a very dark parking lot, and it didnt expose any detail in the back whatsoever, the only hint that there was something back there is faint orange light between his legs.
Yeah, I was actually gonna suggest darkening the area between his legs but didn't want to be the first to say "between his legs" in the thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by B-Ri
yeah but youre big on between his legs outside of the forums, huh? :bang: :portalhug:Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkRyan
cap, youre taking too much offense on what josh and dyne have said. You need the mindset of getting it right on the camera, not needing post to handle it for you. Josh wants you to get better in photography, rather then better at photoshop.
Its cool, I know I'm right.
A lot of your pictures look like stock photos that come with your new printer and they're all "LOOK WHAT COLOURS YOUR NEW PRINTER CAN DO, THIS AIN'T 1995 ANYMORE, BABY!"
Whatever makes you happy though. They are your pictures.
P.S. Don't get such a stick up your ass when you come in here asking for people's opinions on your work. Not everyone is going to love your shit as much as you do. You know?
No problem. I fall in love with my own stuff too, of course that makes sense, since I am awesome.
Took a trip to the beach today.(I love clouds) Close to sunset.
Nice shots. I used to take lots of cloud photos with my digital camera when I lived in Washington. They are sort of endlessly fascinating--the other day I was walking back from the beach with my girlfriend and the contrast of the natural, boundless and flowing clouds over the man-made city was pretty striking.Quote:
Originally Posted by sapphire
Anyway, just to show how you can make photos look with very, very basic photo editing (I use Photoshop): I ran a pretty generic process on these--no careful color manipulation, just duplicated the image on a second layer, changed the blend mode to Soft Light, did auto-levels on the bottom layer and unsharped it just a touch. You can no doubt get even better results with careful editing, but I like doing this general process to quickly edit a bunch of photos to make them more presentable.
Thanks it looks awesome.:)...I don't have photoshop, used to, its too expensive.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkRyan
Nothing is expensive when you have the internet. Noob.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkRyan
another dirty edit is to dupe the layer. change the new layer to Overlay, knock it's opacity to 30-60% and flatten.
snapped a couple of really quick ones to stitch before i got drenched or lightning bolted.
I like the bit of blue in the background. Very nice.
i'm going to be in the market for a DSLR in the near future. limit would be $500 for the camera if possible. any ideas? i was poking around DPreview.com yesterday and got overwhelmed.
so the Canon in the first link says body only. i take it it's useless until i get a lens which will be another couple hundred bucks?
I have a Canon now, and while it's good it doesn't do reds or purples very well. And as B-Ri and myself have talked baout before, it tends to add a bit of glaucoma to the whole picture. I'm bored today so I'll start reading up on some of these.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitan
nikon d40.
imo
faster shutter, wider aperture ftw :x
must have been a strong gust to make rocks sway like they seem to do in this picture
i know what HDR is.
I know the process.
Tripod should have remedied most, so would have careful merging of the photos.
Experimentation is fine, but dont show me this and not expect me to spell out flaws. This, coupled with 2 more attempts when you got it right and it looked great would have been what you should have posted.
Even if it was incredibly interesting lighting, its still blurred as hell and thats all anyone will ever be able to see about it.
its called subject matter son. If trees and leaves arent working with you in the wind that day, then do it later, do it another day, or dont do it
stop taking it so far up the ass.
here ill be rude if you insist
Rule of thumb, dont ever show off out of focus blurry shit, cause it makes a horrible impression on you and your work. You are what you put out and show off.
what the FUCK are you babbling about?
consensus between the D40 and SONY A200? The A300 offers live view right?
cap deleted the posts inbetween. Also believe it or not i dont know much about the sony Alpha series DSLRs :x
also here are 3 pics i took before the long beach job on the 4th, with the new lens.
a couple guys on the Sharky boards have both cameras. all i know is that i believe the big price difference between the A200 and 300 is simply some live view shit. they seem to love their respective cameras (A300 and D40) there though, with no real clear winner.
Go to a camera store and test them both out yourself, it may just come out to what UI you like better.
what camera are you using?
